Ecmandu's No Fool

The debate.
The challenge

Since Ecmandu can be shown to be a fool in some comparative sense and not a fool in another sense, the debate seems to hinge on demonstrating this :
“nothing Worthwhile to contribute to Philosophy”

In b4 Uccisore folds.

If Ecmondu’s can assert that he may be crazy, to abide by rules, which are contradicted and subverted by the ad hominem of the very debate, then, he may probably safely assert that he is no fool.

Ecmandu is arguing that Ecmandu is a fool.

Yeah, don’t post here until after the debate.

Well then then it seems there is no argument, unless his saying it may rather point to his acting the fool. In which case, certainty takes a dive to a very low level of probability. In which case, again, there can be no argument. Only he can know for sure.

Just out of curiosity, is this debate basically just an exercise in irony?

I found this to be interesting:

kirkcenter.org/index.php/boo … ver-lived/

who is debating whom?

This is the statement:

Proposed: Ecmandu is a Fool with nothing Worthwhile to contribute to Philosophy.

It’s poorly worded since it contains two parts. It can be rephrased as :
Ecmandu is a Fool and he has nothing Worthwhile to contribute to Philosophy.

Ahhh, you edited. :open_mouth:

Ecmandu is arguing the he is a fool and that he has nothing worthwhile to contribute to philosophy.

Yeah man because everything is irony right?

I feel like he’s already won this debate.

This debate could go in Soooo… many directions…
:laughing:

Can’t wait to hear from Ucc.

I really don’t see this “debate” going well for anybody including those reading it.

Kropotkin

Yeah, that’s what I thought will happen as well.

I don’t see the debate going well for Ec, he should have never accepted a debate in which he doesn’t get to pick neither the topic nor the side, and lets his opponent pick any, and with the outcome of the debate deciding whether he’ll be banned or not. Either he’s overconfident, or a fool, since by his own admission he isn’t all knowing.

Won’t this debate end in a sort of paradox? If Uccisore proves Ecmandu isn’t a fool and bans Ecmandu, doesn’t it make Ec a fool for accepting the debate in the first place? :-k

In ecmandu’s defense, i’d say that his concept of social stratification and conspicuous consumption is a worthwhile meme to add to philosophy. however he is a fool for believing that brainwashing men to stop flirting with women will save the world from “war and suicide” as he says.

Philosophy is not like a bank account or bucket where a contribution is a measurable quantity like money or water which is accumulated. What is a contribution to philosophy? What is a worthwhile contribution to philosophy? What is a worthless contribution to philosophy?

money is not measurable, it is an inconsistent mode of trade which can be given in various inconsistent quantities based on mood and culture.

which has more philosophical worth the statement “blablabla” or “the universe is 13.7 billion years old”?

Ecmandu needs to focus and address the points. Maybe he needs a Snickers bar.

OTOH, this might be a clever tactic showing that his posts are nothing more than worthless babble. In that case, brilliant.